It doesn’t surprise me that John Downs lost his job at AM 640. He so dedicated to the left-wing political philosophy that his responses are painfully predictable. For those who will defend him by saying that he won the Sam Ross Award for Best National Commentary in 2007, Katie Couric won the Walter Cronkite Award for Journalism Excellence last year and her ratings have hit record lows for CBS News. In any event, his and Marianne Meed Ward’s performance on ‘The Michael Coren Show’ Wednesday was cringe worthy. Thank to SDAMatt2, also known as “Mississauga Matt,” for the video clips.

As for the other comments by Downs and Ward, it further demonstrates how their damaged minds work. Take the politics out of it? As Karl Marx, arguably the most influential communist thinker in modern history, said, class struggle, more specifically the armed uprising of the working class, was necessary to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is something Marxism advocates, the proletariat revolution, which, as history shows, leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. There is no way to take politics out of politically motivated murders.

Next, contrary to popular belief, Adolf Hitler wasn’t directly responsible for the Holocaust. It was Heinrich Himmler, who oversaw the concentration camps, extermination camps, and killing squads, as well as being the chief architect of the “Final Solution,” a plan drawn up at the Wannsee Conference which Hitler did not attend. Am I saying that Hitler shares no blame? Of course not. He was the one who was pushing for “racial hygiene,” as well as the man who put Himmler in a position to do all this, so he is definitely in part responsible those the mass murder of Jewish people. Aside from Himmler, the German people themselves are to blame for assisting, at the least, in spreading this racial hatred which led to the death of millions. David Menzies also points to the fault of the rest of the Western world for turning away the boats filled with Jews because of our own prejudices. The issue here is that Downs and Ward ignore the facts of the matter, that it wasn’t simply one man who was to blame for all this. The simple and ignorant answer they gave speaks to their political correct principles which dictate that the truth must be suppressed if it might offend someone.

What about his nonsense about talk radio hosts in the United States? Seeing how Downs continually refers to them, you would think he blames those like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for the September 11th attacks and the Holocaust. I blame Michael Coren for playing to this false belief that the right are far more prejudicial than the left. After making this statement, Downs himself goes on to demonstrate the opposite.

This snobbery borders on bigotry. Downs hatred is based on what place in Canada a person comes from, so what else would you call it? Montreal has culture but Alberta doesn’t? Now that is debatable, especially since Alberta has its own unique Western culture which is personified by the Calgary Stampede. As for this kind of intolerance, it is, in my experience, mostly found on the left. Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk radio host who is also a lesbian, wrote an article for The Guardian last October discussing her own experience with this form of bigotry, stating that the left is only accepting as long as those like her don’t challenge their politically correct beliefs.

…Presumably, “batshit crazy”is an English liberal term of endearment, right? When I read another commenter’s description of American conservative women politicians as “a bunch of petty, incoherent shrews”, I was filled with joy at realising how great it was to be among authentic feminists once again.

Having made my point, I trust, I’ll now slip out of my snark suit and share a little secret with you. The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda…

One has to wonder what Downs’ opinion of Bruce is. Does he, like so many of his colleagues, share a hatred for her because she doesn’t conform to their liberal agenda?

This final clip has to do with Ward’s own twisted beliefs. To his credit, Downs doesn’t approve of segregated seating at the Juba Restaurant in Toronto, a restaurant run in accordance to Sharia principles, but demonstrates just how ingrained his own political correct beliefs are by nearly backtracking on his disapproval when Coren jokingly asserts he was being “Islamophobic.”

What is scary about Ward’s comments is that she suggests using political power to force the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian sects to go against their own teachings. Just like her previous statements concerning the firing of Juan Williams by National Public Radio, let’s hope this woman never reaches a position where she can make her twisted beliefs law. As for the main point of her comments, leave it to Ward to make an ignorant comparison between the treatment of women by Christianity to the treatment of women by Islam. This isn’t an issue of woman’s rights issue, it is a sacrament, thus not open to debate. As Pope John Paul II stated in his 1994 letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women as this was a rite instituted by Jesus Christ himself. Clearly, Ward can’t wrap her small and empty mind around this fact, but there is more to this. How is the Church’s adherence to Christ’s teaching on a male priesthood comparable to the abuse of women in Islam? If it isn’t segregation, it is a woman’s place as a second-class citizen and Islamic teachings which advocate spousal abuse if a wife dares to disobey her husband. These aren’t the same Ward, so instead of being politically correct about this, try being honest.

If anything, both John Downs and Marianne Meed Ward demonstrate not just the factual, but the logical deficiencies of those who adhere to political correctness. In an attempt to not offend those who are themselves offensive, they refuse to acknowledge facts on the grounds that such facts aren’t in agreement with their warped view of reality. This way of nonsensical thinking, however, is becoming more and more unpopular and those still dedicated to it are finding that their beliefs aren’t as acceptable as they used to be. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, especially ones that are twisted to suit said beliefs.

No Whoopi, neither Muhammed Ali nor Kareem Abdul Jabar were responsible for the September 11th attacks. That wasn’t what Bill O’Reilly was saying when he was on ‘The View’ weeks ago, but that won’t stop her and Joy Behar from trying to excuse their behaviour. The issue here is that, according to Whoopi, O’Reilly wasn’t being politically correct about this issue. Despite evidence to the contrary, Islam cannot be blamed for these terrorist attacks because not all Muslims are fundamentalist. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but let’s not pretend that Islam itself is not in anyway responsible for the violence we are seeing today.

This is the same kind of thinking that has led the Transport Security Administration (TSA) to feeling up 3-year-old girls. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey covered this story last Friday, but the accompanying video has been pulled off Youtube. While the more popular story is John “don’t touch my junk” Tyner, I do think the best example of these regulations going too far is the previous story. Once again, we see how absurd this political correctness has become. As Mark Levin said on his show last week, we know who we are looking for and it most certainly isn’t a 3-year-old girl. The problem is that we can’t target those most likely to commit a terrorist attack because one civil rights group after another would be filing lawsuits in protest. Instead, we have to violate the rights of everyone who boards an aircraft to appease these very same groups. As Mark Simone pointed out last night while filling in for Mark Levin, we don’t see the those people who protested the USA PATRIOT Act protesting these TSA security measures, do we? They have a problem with the wire-tapping of suspected terrorists but not the groping of American airline passengers?

Political correctness has gotten to the point of ridiculousness (the absurdity of a Muslim TSA agent frisking a Catholic nun seems lost on those in charge). When facts and reason are thrown away to appease those who support and advocate terrorism, there is a problem. If it isn’t Hollywood celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg trying to tell us how we should think about Islamic terrorism, it is the Transport Security Administration making all American airline passengers uncomfortable because they are unwilling to take the steps necessary to actually combat the real threat. Islamic terrorism is a fact and no amount of politically correct nonsense will change that.

So what are the differences between a prison-style strip search and these security procedures for those not willing to go through a full-body scan? Prison officials are far more respectful, taking those who need to be searched to a private area, and they don’t touch the person being searched. Why has it come to the point where criminals are treated with more respect than airline passengers? Infuriating…

Another quick post, thanks to NewsBusters.org’ Alana Goodman. During an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg embarrassed themselves and Barbara Walters by walking off the stage. Here’s the video from Fox News.

So what is the issue here? Well, as commenter mattm said, the left needs a biased forum to debate their points and all responses to their comments must be sanitized. O’Reilly, to his credit, wasn’t going to play this game and pointed out the facts; the September 11th attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists and that the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM), because of this fact, is inappropriate. When Barack Obama made his statements on the construction of the GZM, he showed to millions of Americans just how out of touch he was with them. That is was the point O’Reilly tried to raise, a point which Behar tried to refute with her ridiculous statement about how she was an American and she agreed with the President. NEWSFLASH Joy, you don’t speak for all Americans. You don’t even speak for a considerable percentage of Americans, so your point is moot. As for Whoopi’s comment about Timothy McVeigh, he was quoted saying “Science is my religion”, so her point is not only moot, but ill-informed and idiotic. Unable to debate O’Reilly, both women then stormed off the stage.

While this kind of nonsense pales in comparison to what Rosie O’Donnell did, I am pretty sure after the show both women were warned about this behaviour by Barbara Walters. Even she is able to realize how damage such theatrics can be to her show’s already questionable credibility.

In any event, I recommend my modest readership give Allahpundit’s post a look.

UPDATE: About to call it a night when I bump into another post from Hot Air’s Allahpundit. After being “outrageously outraged”, as Allahpundit put it, Joy Behar sits down with known “9/11 Truther” and certifiable lunatic, Jesse Ventura on her CNN Headline News show. So she will tolerate “Trutherism”, which idiotically states that President George W. Bush somehow orchestrated the murder of nearly three thousand Americans just so the United States of America could invade the Middle East, but won’t accept the actual facts of the event? How could anyone think this woman belongs on television?

If Barbara Walters or the management at CNN needed a reason to let her go, I’m sure that her lunacy today should suffice… Pathetic…

UPDATE: This quick post just keeps getting longer. The first thing is a new video from johnnydollar, two clips from this morning’s Fox & Friends. Geraldo Rivera explains his position on the incident “cleverly” saying that “humans killed us on 9/11″, and then Bill O’Reilly responds to Rivera’s comments with a few quick words from Karl Rove.

UPDATE: More to add to this post. The first comes from Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer, a audio clip from Rosie O’Donnell’s radio show yesterday. As usual, the audience gets to hear Rosie’s “wisdom” (and I use that term as loosely as possible) on the incident. Why anyone would waste their time with this nonsense is beyond me.

The second video is from ‘Drinking with Bob’, and as usual, Bob bluntly calls it like it is.

If you ask me, the vast majority of Americans would prefer listening to Bob than Rosie O’Donnell. Rosie might as well join Joy and Whoopi in the unemployment line since I am definitely getting tired of their nonsense.

The current system of trader compensation will continue to decay the heart of Wall Street.

Which is a greater threat to the nation — terrorism or the relentless decline of middle income families? Unless we abandon our core values out of unwarranted fear, terror cannot fundamentally change our way of life. The number of people affected by growing income disparity is vast. When I was a student, income disparity was indicative of an underdeveloped and unstable society.

The government appropriately devotes enormous resources to protect our lives and property from terrorism. It is unthinkable that a leader would display any weakness opposing this threat. Politicians have stiff backbones when it comes to terrorism.

In contrast, the government is timid and half-hearted in its approach to the system which perversely rewards a few Wall Street traders with billions of dollars of bonuses, yet allows the foundation to decay.

Kenneth Feinberg issued his report identifying outrageous Wall Street compensation of executives despite their role in the financial disaster and bail out. He proposed that the banks voluntarily adopt “brake provisions” that permit boards of directors to nullify bonuses in the event of a new financial crisis.

He might have more success asking the lions of the Serengeti to give the wildebeests a sporting chance of making an escape.

Over the last fifteen years, the financial sector’s percentage of GDP has increased dramatically. At the same time, the median family income stagnated and then declined. I do not believe that this is a coincidence.

The large banks have changed. They slice and dice the constituent elements of a stagnant economy, squeezing value out in ever more sophisticated ways. Wall Street has turned away from its roll as the financial backer of industry and commerce. In the short term, it is more profitable for them to use their capital for trading. Newfangled software and MIT “quants” allow the traders to “rip the faces off” of corporate counterparties and investors which were once trusted clients.

These young traders are simply doing what America has told them to do. They are allowed to earn obscene amounts of money using the advantageous information, technology and capital of their employers. Making money from less powerful counterparties is like shooting fish in a barrel. The banks make so much money that they have no problem shoveling it out to the traders.

The alternative careers for these talented young people offer upside which is modest by comparison. Besides, the trading world, in which the law of the jungle prevails, appeals to youthful aggressiveness. Michael Lewis expected that college students would be appalled by the amoral environment he described in “Liar’s Poker.” Instead, the overwhelming response he received from students was a desire to get in on the action. The draining of talented and energetic young professionals away from corporate America where they could help create jobs by the millions may be as damaging as the new allocation of wealth.

The government’s flaccid approach to Wall Street compensation, embodied in the Feinberg report, is appalling. Geithner and Bernake appear intimidated by Wall Street, yet intent on its approval. Why do they guilelessly buy into the notion that giant, multi-purpose banks dominated by trading are essential to America’s competitiveness in the world? Smaller, less risky institutions aligned with economic growth would seem to be a better idea for the vast majority of Americans.

Greenspan and his progeny, including Geithner and Bernake, are enthralled by financial innovation. Innovation, by itself, can be good or bad. Innovation does not fall into the “good” category if it corrupts the home mortgage market, siphons off business productivity and the jobs and wages of employees and unfairly enriches the few at the expense of the many. It is good if it creates jobs and enriches the public as a whole.

Trader compensation is at the heart of the problem. It encourages behavior that is inconsistent with Wall Street’s most important function: raising capital for industry and commerce. The banks and the government are afraid that the traders will desert the banks and move to hedge funds if their compensation is reduced. If they do jump ship, it is all the better for America. At least hedge funds can blow themselves up without crippling the US economy in the process.

Former traders now run most of the financial sector. They believe that the traders somehow deserve compensation at the prevailing levels. The system will not change unless it is forced to do so. The restrictions in the financial reform legislation only inhibit specific abuses. The banks will concoct new ways to trade risk. It is the only way to maintain their unconscionable profits (that is, until the next bubble bursts and we are in an even worse predicament). The only way to really change the system is to reduce short term incentives, that is to say limit bonuses. The government needs the kind of resolve it uses when fighting terrorism. After all, the stakes are actually higher.

Done reading? After reading this article, I left this response in the comment section…

This is absolutely the dumbest thing I have ever read. Excuse me but if I lose a small fortune in stocks or if my company goes out of business due to an extended recession, I can still rebuild and get back on my feet. Now, if an Islamic fundamentalists shouts “Allahu Akbar” then blows me and everyone around me to Heaven, there is nothing I can do because I am DEAD!

Economies rise and economies fall, and they do this constantly from boom to bust and back again. Americans have pulled themselves out of a slew of deep recessions and one Great Depression, and there is very little Wall Street can do to bring about permanent damage. Terrorists, however, can end lives, destroy families, cause untold misery which can’t be fixed with a loan reevaluation or government handout.

It is mind-boggling to see what you and your ilk worry about at night… Pathetic…

To which Mr. Turbeville responded…

Two responses.

First, the policy would be a franchise tax on financial institutions based on excessive bonuses justified by incentives to take on imprudent risks.

I am sorry that Northern Lights didn’t get the point. An economy that spirals down because of declining productivity and disparity of income is an existential threat. A deep, deflationary decline of the economy could threaten our fundamental political philosophy. In the extreme, it is even a national security threat which is more serious than terrorism by far. You maybe killed by a terrorist or a drunk driver and both are bad. But many more lives are at risk if the economy is fundamentally and permanently damaged.

Northern Lights? What an “original” way to insult me. If he can’t even get my tag right, I can’t be of importance or so says the man who is working for the dubious New Deal 2.0. Anyways…

To start with, let’s take a look at the main focus of this article. It is easy to see that the chief concern of Turbeville is “income disparity”, a “problem” which affects a growing number of people, as the article itself says. For those not familiar with the term, it is one used to describe inequities in salary between socio-economic groups within society, like the difference in pay between the upper, middle and lower classes. In short, Turbeville is worried about the fact that the wealthiest attain more wealth while the poorest lose it, or “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer”. I don’t disagree with this at all, especially during a recession, as those most affected by an economic slowdown are the lowest income earners, but what is the point in pointing this out? Turbeville believes that it is because the “rich are getting richer” that the “poor are getting poorer”, more specifically, that Wall Street bonuses are hurting lower income earners, as he pointed out in the article…

…Over the last fifteen years, the financial sector’s percentage of GDP has increased dramatically. At the same time, the median family income stagnated and then declined. I do not believe that this is a coincidence…

This statement is downright asinine. The only purpose for the first point is to somehow suggest that the financial sector’s growth as a percentage of GDP must be sinister. In the last fifteen years, we have seen the emergence of the People’s Republic of China as an major economic power, as well a the Republic of India, both needing substantial foreign investment to maintain current levels of growth, much of which comes from Western investors. Businesses both here and abroad are not only starting up, but expanding, and with more and more needing loans, one would expect the financial sector to grow dramatically. For the first point, one might as well say “the road is slippery when wet” as all this does is point out the obvious that, over time, the financial sector will overtake less productive sectors in terms of percentage of GDP.

As for the second point on median family income, I would definitely like to see the numbers supporting that. As the U.S. Census bureau indicates in Table F-6, in terms of current dollars, median and mean household income has steadily increased over the last fifteen years, dipping in the final year of the census due to the financial crisis. In terms of CRI-U-RS adjusted dollars, one does see a decline in both the median and mean family income, but not for the last fifteen years. The decline starts in 2001 and stays stagnant till about 2007 for the mean and 2008 for the median, but this is far from the long trend Turbeville would have his readers believe. On that point, Wallace also fails to prove that this is because of Wall Street’s “evil ways” and not other factors. You would have to be an idiot to think that the IT collapse,the September 11th attacks,the Afghanistan War,the Iraq War,Hurricane Katrina, etc would have less of an effect than Wall Street bonuses on family incomes. The only possible way one could believe it would be if the financial sector was somehow to blame for all these events, and one would have to be delusional to accept that.

As for a there being a relationship between Wall Street earnings and family incomes, why not look at what Turbeville provides as evidence. For the next few paragraphs, Wallace demonizes those working in the financial sector for their use of “newfangled software” and “MIT ‘quants’ to “rip the faces off” once trusted clients (language purposely used to elicit a negative emotional response). He even cites Michael Lewis’ Liar’s Poker to paint those in the financial sector not simply amoral, but immoral, a collection of dishonest and greedy people who are siphoning talented youths away from the corporate sector where these individuals could create millions of jobs. So how does this support his belief that there is a relationship between Wall Street earnings and family income? It doesn’t. Turbeville’s evidence is that he believes because those in the financial sector are such dishonest and greedy people, they must be making their profits at the expense of the average American. He provides no proof, just speculation, and this is really where his argument falls apart.

Without any solid evidence to support this claim, like factual data to show a correlation, Turbeville’s argument hinges on the belief that the financial sector’s practices are negatively affecting productivity in America in some immeasurable way. This is the second point raised by Wallace in response to my comment, “declining productivity”. So how could the financial sector be damaging other sectors of the economy? According to Turbeville, it is because the incentives provided by Wall Street is “draining of talented and energetic young professionals away from corporate America where they could help create jobs by the millions”. Where do you start to address such nonsense? The assumption here is that these “talented and energetic young professionals” that do end up in the financial sector are in no way different than those who are in other sectors of the economy, an easily exchangeable resource which has been diverted to Wall Street because of its immoral practices. If someone has spent the time and money to prepare for a job in the financial sector, they can’t simply be moved to another sector of the economy for the “good of the country”. What does Wallace want the government to do, dictate where certain people must work and how much they are allowed to be paid? People prepare themselves for the jobs they want, be it a position in the corporate, financial or even agricultural sector, a point Turbeville has purposely not pointed out for the sake of his argument.

There are two points that need to be addressed here. The first is this belief that the financial sector should not be allowed to have these “talented and energetic young professionals”. With all the business being done by the financial sector, both here and abroad, why shouldn’t they have the most competent individuals? Wouldn’t their education and experience allow them to maximize profits while limiting risk? None of this makes the least bit of sense since, for the financial sector to have expanded, thousands, if not millions of jobs would have to have been created. Why has this job creation not been mentioned in Turbeville’s article? Why does he deny this point? Simply because it goes to further undermine his ridiculous argument.

The second point is that for far too long the corporate sector has been made unappealing by hostile government policy which has stifled development through harsh regulations and excessive taxation. Is it any wonder why so many businesses have moved production abroad? As Mort Zuckerman identified a number of examples in his recent column for US News & World Report, it is because of such policies that the Obama administration has created an “economic katrina”, a period of double digit unemployment rivaled only by the Great Depression of the last century. Zukerman even points to President Barack Obama’s recent speech, which was a “gratuitous and overstated demonization” of the business community, as proof of this hostility towards the corporate sector in Washington. It is these government policies, which the corporate sector does not trust, that are hurting job creation. This is far more damaging than Wall Street bonuses, especially since Turbeville has failed to prove that they are even a threat, let alone a threat as dangerous as a terrorist attack.

So what do we make of all this? There are two critical points which must be discussed. The first point is that we don’t actually see any real comparison between terrorism and Wall Street practices. The purpose of drawing such a comparison is to “fear monger”, to suggest that those in the financial sector are enemies which the government must combat. Why not compare the effects of Wall Street practices to the September 11th attacks or the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Black Hand, a Serbian terrorist group? The reason you don’t see a comparison is because it would reveal just how idiotic such a comparison is. As for this constant reference to the recent financial crisis, as Zuckerman himself points out is that laying all the blame on Wall Street for this collapse “ignores the role of Congress in many areas, but most glaringly in forcing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration to back loans to people who could not afford them.” Once again, another purposeful omission which undermines Wallace’ nonsensical argument.

The second point is Turbeville’s advocacy for more government control. This nonsense reminds me of the Phil Donahue Milton Friedman interview…

By advocating increased government regulation of the financial sector to combat of this perceived immoral behaviour, Turbeville is saying that political self-interests are nobler than economic self-interests. Is there a need for new regulation? Obviously something has to be done, but how can anyone trust government regulators, which were as much, if not more responsible for the financial crisis? They can’t, not when the recently passed financial regulation bill contains ethnic and gender quotas. In this, Turbeville is hoping that Americans trust Washington, more than they trust Wall Street. Matter of fact, to believe anything Wallace has said about the financial sector, you would have to ignore the political corruption that is running rampant in Washington.

In conclusion, are Wall Street bonuses more dangerous than terrorist attacks? As I stated previously, Turbeville fails to even compare the two, let alone provide any evidence to prove that such incentives are in any way dangerous. The entire article is nonsensical, especially at the end where Wallace demands the government treat Wall Street like they treat terrorists. He would have us forget the September 11th attacks, and all other attempts since then, for the sake of punishing the financial sector for the perceived “crimes” they have “committed”. The reality is that Americans are still terrified of future terrorist attacks because they know just how dangerous it truly is, and if you think otherwise, think again…

People have nightmares because of terrorist attacks Turbeville. No one runs terrified for their life because of Wall Street bonuses… Pathetic…

A hat tip to Patriots and Heroes for this video. I will have to say that I am almost as passionate about the September 11th attacks as Glenn Beck, losing my temper on a group of mental midgets in a Introduction to Politics discussion group who were trying to prove that the United States was to blame. It is the reason I have stayed away from politics courses and those who major in this degree program. Spending money to learn how to hate your country and ignore the lessons of the past is a complete waste. It doesn’t matter what country you call home, when the planes hit New York City, it might as well have been Toronto. They attacked all of us, and we mourned together at the events of that day. As a Canadian, I am deeply ashamed at what I hear from those on my side of the border who still don’t understand what this day means. Americans are our brothers and sisters, and when they are hurt, we are hurt…

I do agree with Beck on this one, that politics has gotten in the way of moving both our countries forward. Whether it is the reconstruction of the Twin Towers, or efforts to combat terrorism, there are those within our countries that want us to forget what happened eight years ago. What is this nonsense we see from Barack and Michelle Obama? This is downright disturbing, and if anything should tell Americans that this poor excuse for a man, let alone a president, that he has lost touch with them, this is it. Did we see him in New York City mourning on Friday? No we didn’t because he doesn’t feel the way he should about this occasion, and that downright disturbs me…

Let’s not forget what they did to us and let’s not forget why are soldiers still fight… Time to do what must be done to move forward, and not let political correctness or sheer ignorance stop us… Pathetic…

Let’s return to what got me laughing this morning, Ed Morrissey’s post and the video from Naked Emperor News. I don’t believe that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were pushing for reparations and wealth redistribution, but as the interview with Uprising Radio in April of last year showed, Jones certainly does. Having studied the Civil Rights Movement since high school, I can safely say that neither Parks nor King advocated for these radical measures, and while King did push for economic aid for America’s poorest communities, this is a far cry from the race-based “economic equality” pushed by radicals like Jones. Matter of fact, much of this talk of reparations comes from National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a group which clashed regularly with Martin Luther King Jr. because of ideological differences. Does it surprise me that such a radical would hijack history to push his politics? Not at all, but I think this speaks more about his stupidity than his desire to push his political agenda. What’s funny is that people like Van Jones actually believe what they are doing is for the benefit of others, no matter how illogical or dangerous their agenda is. Hilarious right?

I am sure that in the next election these jokers, including Jones himself, will be laughed out of office by American voters. Having witnessed the Soviet Union collapse and the People’s Republic of China turn towards capitalism, I think it is funny that the new Green jobs ‘czar’ would believe in a failed political philosophy… Hilarious…

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of “the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition.

“My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources,” Jones said in his statement tonight.

Jones also said in his statement that “In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration – some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize.”

9/11Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email or individually confirm they have added their name to that list.”

“I think in most cases they spoke to them personally,” he added. “No one’s name was put on that list without them knowing it.”

Whether or not he is gone by Monday, as Charles Krauthammer, Mara Liasson and Steve Hayes believe, I think this is whole ordeal is downright funny. Wait till Barack Obama “throws him under the bus”, I promise you everyone will be laughing…

As for Meg Whitman’s comments to the Weekly Standard, I do agree with Michelle that this is a lesson for those looking to get into politics; BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT SOMEONE YOU DON’T KNOW! As this fiasco continues, it is best that those with ties to Van Jones start breaking them, especially those on the other side of the aisle…

While watching a “political train wreck” usually isn’t funny, one can’t help but laugh that such a radical got such an important government position… Hilarious…

UPDATE: Aside from laughing at this mess Obama got himself into, I have been keeping my eye for updates on this ongoing fiasco. To be serious, I had heard previously that Van Jones was a supporter of Mumia Abu Jamal, the man who was tried and convicted of the police officer Daniel Faulkner, but I will link to the post by Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey for those who wish to learn more. Does this surprise me? No, especially coming from someone who has spent so much time trying to undermine the San Francisco police, as well as the American government itself (what do you think the purpose of the “9/11 Truther” movement is?). What is troubling is that, as Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin discussed last night, that the appointment of Jones isn’t simply a mistake by the Obama administration, but a well research decision made to put a like-minded individual in a position of power…

As Mark Levin said last night, the problem isn’t Van Jones, it is Barack Obama. Jones isn’t the only person with these beliefs in the government, there are quite a bit of the radical roaming the halls of the White House. Who could forget Carol Browner, the avowed socialist and now Energy ‘czar’? There are many more of these fringe left ideologues in this administration, and while it is important to point them out, let’s try not to get obsessed with a single one…

I know, I know, I have spent a lot of time outlining this radical, but what else can I do? It’s the big issue right now, and I can’t help but laugh at this whole thing blowing up in Obama’s face… Hilarious…

UPDATE:Curt at Flopping Aces is discussing how soon it will be before Van Jones is told to leave. I have to agree with him that such a radical has no place being near the White House, but let’s not forget who put him there. Only a radical like Barack Obama could have appointed an avowed communist to the position of Green jobs ‘czar’. I also have to disagree with John McCormack at the Weekly Standard that this was Rahm Emanuel’s pick, especially with the way Jones’ himself has bragged about his friendship with the President (there are pictures supporting this). Could Emanuel have played a part in getting the avowed communist his job? Sure, but I don’t think he alone could have gotten Jones past the FBI screening process. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

In the meantime, sit back and relax, this is getting funnier by the minute…

I will say that I haven’t been updating my blog as much as I should have, but to be honest, I just didn’t feel up to it. There is only so much that can be said with “Obama did this, here’s why it’s bad, and here’s my thoughts” stories, one after another, but this time he has gone too far…

I was on Hot Air when I found this video of Air Force One doing a fly by of Goldman Sachs Tower. I have to say that this is far too familiar, especially having watching the World Trade Centre collapsing after being struck by by two Boeing 737s (Air Force One being a 747 at the time) on September 11th, 2001. New Yorkers felt the same, fleeing in terror as the plane passed the Statue of Liberty and flew over the city. According to Reuters, hundreds called 911 as hundreds more quickly evacuated buildings in lower Manhattan and ran for their lives. If I were New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I would be far more than furious with the White House for this near-disaster, I would be calling for President Obama’s impeachment.

As I have stated before, Barack Obama doesn’t have what it takes to be President. Everyday it seems there is a new reason to why this is true, and honestly, I am kind of terrified at what will come next. If he isn’t shaking hands with Hugo Chavez, helping to undermine the position of America’s allies in the region, he apologizing for the United States being “arrogant”. It has only been 100 days, and yet he has far exceeded anyone’s expectations of sheer incompetence. Is this the “Hope and Change” Americans wanted? I seriously doubt it…

Americans better brace themselves. The first year of his first term isn’t even finished yet, and I fear that a “9/11 reenactment” is not going to be the worst thing that happens while Obama is in the White House…

UPDATE:Allahpundit and others were kicking around ideas of what Obama and his ilk could do next to not only waste tax payer money, but to do it in a way that would terrify the average American. While interesting, I think the really issue is what he do that would make up for this mess. An apology just doesn’t cut it, and seeing how most in the MSM are refusing to call him on this mistake, I could easily see this stupidity continuing. There is no way he can learn from these mistakes when his actions can’t be criticized without being accused of racism… Pathetic…

UPDATE:According to Allahpundit at Hot Air, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) knew that the Air Force One flight would scare New Yorkers. I do agree with Allahpundit’s assessment that this is good news, seeing as how it is better then them being overly incompetent on top of being insensitive. The issue I am having though is that, knowing this, how could they let the White House talk them into it? I don’t care if he is the President, you don’t get to freely terrorize your own citizens.

I honestly don’t care that he is “furious” either. He is either so incompetent that he can’t keep his administration under control, or he is just plain stupid in thinking that a photo op like this was worth “reenacting” 9/11… The only people who have a right to be furious are those who ran in terror yesterday, not the man who gave the go ahead to this fiasco…

UPDATE:Michelle Malkin is covering the official apology for this fiasco. It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama was on the plane (thus the reason for the “Air Force One” call sign), seeing how this man just loves photo ops. Aside from conspiracy theory, I believe it is more of the same ignorance this administration has shown, not nothing the importance of the title “Air Force One” when they issued this apology. It isn’t really a problem calling this particular plane by that name, as I have in this blog post, but those working at the White House should have known better.

UPDATE:This coming from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey. It appears that the pictures taken of this “patriotic” moment will be classified, which is most likely due to the incomprehensiable level of stupidity that went into planning this fiasco. It isn’t like hiding these pictures will make people forget about this incident, and it sure won’t make President Obama himself look any better either. I say why not release the pictures, make a postcard out of them even, send them as apology letter to every New Yorker that fled in terror. Just a thought, it couldn’t hurt you know…

This story is just about over, but this is by far the weirdest turn of event yet…

UPDATE: Been thinking about it for a while, and instead of deleting the remark and the following comments, I would like to properly explain my remarks about impeaching Barack Obama. Do I think this event is enough to impeach him? Of course not. You could argue that he lied about his involvement, lied about informing the proper authorities to the fly over, etc but Obama lied in a press conference, not under oath like former President Bill Clinton. This incident demonstrates just how incompetent “The One” is, but it isn’t grounds for impeachment. So why did I say it? Well, as we saw during the former President George W. Bush’s time in office, every incident, according to his critics, was grounds for impeachment. Nevermind that most of the time Bush and his administration wasn’t even to blame for what occurred, like the levies breaking in Louisiana, they still tried to pin whatever happened on him and demanded he be impeached. If I were Mayor Bloomberg, after having to deal with the fallout of this fiasco, I would be demanding a variety things, a public apology from the administration, Obama’s impeachment (seeing how it was supposed to have been his idea), reparations for the costs incurred due to this incident, etc While I am doubtful that any of it would happen, all Bloomberg could do to salvage his reputation was to continually blame the White House for the panic that they caused with this idiotic stunt. The point of such a remark would be to deflect as much criticism as possible while placing the blame for this incident squarely on Obama, the one who planned it. Seeing how New York hasn’t been treated with the utmost respect by this administration, such an extreme demand may have won him a bit of political support.

I hope that better explains what I meant by this. Those who wish to leave comments on that remark should read this explanation before doing so, saving me the trouble of having to explain my remarks once again… Upsetting…